I didn't donate to Wikipedia

Well hopefully 10yr olds also aren’t grabbing sleeping tatti’s cc to pay for the price of coffee… if they even know how much that costs

I would stick to Encyclopedia Britannica if wiki cost money.

Can Encyclopedia Brittanica elaborate on the different algorithms for Bayesian networks and have links to various implementations?

Google can not. The best that they can do is point me in the right direction. Besides, Google’s first result is more often than not, Wikipedia. In this particular instance it happened to be the best resource (surprisingly more informative than Wolfram which is usually the front runner on all things math).

Point is, there are a huge host of topics which Wikipedia is by far the best resource for. And it can be enormously entertaining, either by reading up on interesting facts or by getting involved in edit wars like when I fought with those Meshichists that control all Lubavitch related articles.

There are far worse ways to spend your time and money.

I try to donate a small amount ($5 or $10) each year. They provide an invaluable resource for those wanting to understand the world. In many areas such as the exact sciences their articles tend to be excellent. Their system, in which anyone can contribute, but in which content can also be checked for quality, is really amazing.